This comment describes and critiques the decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust. It considers in particular the Court's position on the effect of Patel v Mirza on previous illegality case law. It analyses the enduring tensions between Patel and the House of Lords’ decision in Gray v Thames Trains, which the Supreme Court in Henderson upheld as enduringly authoritative notwithstanding the rearticulation of the illegality principle in Patel. It assesses the logical problems in the Supreme Court's position, and contextualises it as an attempt to mitigate Patel ‘s potentially disruptive effects on legal certainty.

中文翻译：

---

侵权中的灰色地带：帕特尔诉米尔扎案后的非法与权威

该评论描述并批评了英国最高法院在Henderson诉Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust案中的决定。它特别考虑了法院关于Patel v Mirza对先前非法判例法的影响的立场。它分析了帕特尔与上议院在格雷诉泰晤士火车案中的裁决之间持久的紧张关系，尽管帕特尔案重新阐明了非法性原则，但亨德森案的最高法院仍维持该裁决具有持久的权威性. 它评估了最高法院立场中的逻辑问题，并将其背景化为试图减轻帕特尔对法律确定性的潜在破坏性影响。